Shailendra Kumar Chaudhary and Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Social Welfare and Ors.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:75036

Court No. - 5

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20576 of 2021

Petitioner :- Shailendra Kumar Chaudhary And Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Social Welfare And Ors.

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Indrajeet Shukla,Pradeep Kumar Shukla

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar

¶7

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶8

Heard Shri Skand Bajpai and Shri Abhyudaya Mishra, Advocate(s) holding brief of Shri Pradeep Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Shri Vivek Shukla and Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel(s) appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Shri R. P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 7/District Basic Education Officer.

¶9

Despite the notice having been issued to respondent no. 6, nobody has responded on its behalf. As per the order dated 23.10.2021, the service of notice is held sufficient upon the respondent no. 6. Thus, this Court proceeds to hear and decide the matter finally.

¶10

Under challenge is the order dated 18.02.2021, a copy of which is Annexure No. 1 to the petition, whereby the claim of the petitioners for payment of salary from the State Exchequer has been rejected.

¶11

Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that petitioners no. 1 to 3 claim to have been appointed as Assistant Teachers on 01.07.2000, 01.07.1996 and 07.07.2000, respectively.

¶12

Contention is that respondent no. 6- Institution came in the grant in-aid vide order dated 27.07.2016, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. 3 to the petition.

¶13

Admittedly the petitioners are not Teacher Eligibility Test (in short "TET") qualified.

¶14

Petitioners stake their claim for being paid salary from the State Exchequer which has been rejected vide order impugned dated 18.02.2021 by contending that as in terms of Government Order dated 07.09.2011, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. 14 to the petition, TET examination has been made mandatory and as the petitioners are not in possession of the qualification of TET and as their appointment has not been approved by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, as such their claim has been rejected.

¶15

Order impugned also indicates that there is no approval by Basic Shiksha Adhikari pertaining to the appointment of petitioner no. 4.

¶16

Argument of Shri Skand Bajpai and Shri Abhyudaya Mishra, Advocate(s) is that a perusal of Government Order dated 07.09.2011 would indicate that the said government order only mandates for holding of a TET examination but nowhere does it provide that a teacher should be in possession of TET qualification consequently, rejection of the claims of the petitioners on the ground that in terms of Government Order dated 07.09.2011 they are not in possession of TET qualification reflects non-application of mind on the part of the competent authority. Thus, it is contended that the order impugned merits to be set aside on this ground.

¶17

On the other hand, Shri Vivek Shukla and Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel(s) appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Shri R. P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 7/District Basic Education Officer, based on the averments contained in the counter affidavit, have supported the order impugned by contending that vide Government Order dated 07.09.2011 the teachers are expected to be in possession of qualification of TET and as admittedly, the petitioners are not in possession of said qualification consequently, their claim has been rejected.

¶18

Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and having perused the records it emerges that after appointment of the petitioners as Assistant Teachers and after the institution came in grant-in-aid vide order dated 27.07.2016, petitioners staked their claim for payment of salary from State Exchequer. The competent authority, vide order impugned dated 18.02.2021, has rejected their claim primarily on the ground that in terms of Government Order dated 07.09.2011 they are not in possession of qualification of TET.

¶19

A perusal of Government Order dated 07.09.2011 on which reliance has been placed by the respondents while rejecting the claim of the petitioners would indicate that the same only mandates for holding of TET examination but nowhere does the said Government Order provide that a candidate should be in possession of said qualification. Thus, it is apparent that while rejecting the claim of the petitioners, competent authority has patently erred in law in placing reliance on a Government Order which has no applicability on the facts of the case.

¶20

Incidentally, the said reason has also been supported by the respondents while filing their counter affidavit.

¶21

Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 18.02.2021, a copy of which is Annexure No. 1 to the petition, is quashed.

¶22

Matter is remitted back to the competent authority who is said to be respondent no. 1-Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat, Lucknow to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

¶23

Let such order be passed within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶24

Consequences to follow.

¶25

Order Date :- 13.11.2024 Mohit Singh/-

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shailendra Kumar Chaudhary and Ors. v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Social Welfare and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailendra Kumar Chaudhary and Ors. v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Social Welfare and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Mohan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Chini Udyog Evam Ganna Vikas,Govt. U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Vinod Kumar Gupta Vs U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) Thru. Its Managing Dir. Lko. and 3 Others

Jeewan Lal Gupta Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Tele- Communications Ministry of Communi. New Delhi and 2 Others

Ramvati vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu., Lucknow and 5 Others

Km. Kalpana vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko and 2 Others

Ganga Prasad vs U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) Thru. Managing Director and 3 Others